T1B

It was an act of rape alright because she is too young to give consent. Why don't you point out the violent aspect of it?

rape1 [reyp]
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
verb (used with object), raped, rap·ing.
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.
7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.
verb (used without object), raped, rap·ing.
9.
to commit rape.

Just because you're so unclear as to what rape is Midget. By any definition, rape is a crime of VIOLENCE, no matter what the situation is, including the threat of rape. Statutory rape is one of the vilest forms of rape. Violence personified. Just as you are stupid personified.

By this point, you know this, so just quit trolling. Enough already, move the fuck on.

You are the one stupid enough to call a 17 yo slut the victim of a violent crime and I'm trolling?
Once again, please point out the violent aspect of the case I posted.

Last time asshole, in the example you cited, YOU called the girl a slut, not me. That makes the stupid person you, by your own admission.

I've pointed out the violent aspect many times now, cited sources both via dictionaries and legal, including your own state.

Just like subjectivity in the other thread, the definition is obvious. You are oblivious.

Drop the act, quit trolling, stop feigning niceness to the people at the troll stop and shove it all up your midget ass.

Buh bye.

If it is so obvious then you should be able to point out the violent aspect of the example I cited.

I have, multiple times now.

Perhaps a second lobotomy is in order for you, as the first one clearly didn't take. You're still breathing, reciting idiotic nonsense and mashing submit over and over with your gnarled little knuckles while droning on into infinity.

It's sad, but still amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.

Go ahead and repeat your question Bilbo. The answer is still the same as it always was.

The white flag you're waving however is burning from overuse.

Is Moving Sale defending sex with minors?

Carson wrote:Is Moving Sale defending sex with minors?

How else would he find a partner who doesn't tower over him.

Recognizing this horse can't really get any deader, let me see if I can explain in simple English what seems to be eluding everyone.

MS is trying to draw a distinction between plain English & legalese. The "use it in a sentence" approach is a pretty lame way to illustrate the point. To perhaps oversimplify what I believe he's trying to say, in plain English, violence requires ACTUAL unwanted physical contact intended to cause harm. If I make no physical contact with you or do not contact you with a weapon, by this definition, I have not committed a violent act. Legalese includes the THREAT OF (potential) violence. In plain English, there is most certainly a difference between actual and potential. They are NOT the same. This distinction is blurred as far as the law is concerned - potential IS the same as actual regarding the legal definition of violence. This is what I believe he was trying to convey when he said:

threats of violence equate to actual violence. It's a trick that lawyers who write these codes use all the time.

So in plain English, actual and potential are not the same. In legalese, they are the same, at least as far as violence is defined. The law defines armed robbery as a violent act. If I point a gun at you but don't pull the trigger or otherwise physically contact or harm you, I have not been violent per the plain English definition, but I have been by the legal definition. Regarding statutory rape, minors are considered legally incapable of consenting to sex. But we all know that teenagers know what they want and what they don't want. If an underage girl wants to have sex with an adult and goes through with it, the sexual contact that ensues is not unwanted and is not violent by the plain English definition. But since she is legally incapable of consent and rape is considered violent, statutory rape is legally defined as a violent act. (Not defending sex with minors, just focusing on the semantics.)

MS suggests using the OED definitions of violence to illustrate his point. While intimidation is not included as part of the plain English definition, it is included in the legal definition. The primary definition of violence in the OED is "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." The "Law" definition in the OED is "The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force."

Hope this helps. To kill this thread.

I like to use the Socratic method as much as possible when discussing these types of things so I would never lay it out the way Chan did. That being said, the above post accurately depicts my stance.

Moving Sale wrote:I like to use the Socratic method as much as possible

I know when I think of Moving Sale, the historic figure who first comes to mind is Socrates. :wink:

Smackie Chan wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:I like to use the Socratic method as much as possible

I know when I think of Moving Sale, the historic figure who first comes to mind is Socrates. :wink:

Verne Troyer.

Smackie, I get your point and have from the beginning. I have also cited the use of the word violence in context with leglese and plain English. Your post is well said and it isn't wrong. This rational approach was where I first asked MS the question I did, which was, " how is there no violence in the facts, when the threat of violence still constitutes a crime?" Instead of staying on point, he veered into his usual vapid rhetoric.

In plain English, actual and potential are not the same, you're correct. However, this entire discussion is in reference to the sense of violence as a crime, which encompasses actual and potential as defined by law. This wasn't a discourse on grammar or proper English, it is about the crime of violence and what defines it. So your very eloquent perspective is appreciated and taken. It is also what I have been agreeing with since the I first posted in this thread.

Violence is a word and violence is a crime. Violence is a concept and it also an act. It can be implied or it can be a force. Any way you slice it, by LAW, which is the point, it is a crime in every aspect. This wasn't an English class or a lesson in semantics, it is about what legally constitutes violence. If the courts were to stick to just using the purest definition of words as they appear in a dictionary, a hell of a lot of criminals would never have been tried for the acts they committed. That's not the world I want to live in and that is why legalese is necessary, at least in most instances.

Honestly, if someone threatened your family, stood over your wife pushing a knife in her face and screaming he was going to rape her, but never actually touched her or did anything physical, are you okay with that because it was only a potential act? No physical harm, no foul? I doubt you would say yes to this.

So I'm finished with this,

Thank you for your perspective Smackie, hope you understand mine.

From my understanding of the sexual intercourse laws in AZ there is no crime called rape. The code uses words like 'sexual contact.' Is it your position that you can't be raped in AZ because the law never uses the word? And if not do you see my point about being able to commit a non violent rape or armed robbery. If not this poor horse is getting beat some more.

No MS, that is not my position at all. You are right in that in the state of Arizona, while statutory rape laws exist, the state has replaced the word "rape" with sexual misconduct or sexual assault. This is all legal semantics, as you are well aware, though I do not know why this is the case. The omission of the word for another term aside, rape is still rape.

As I told Smackie, I do see your point on the English definition of violence being different than the legalese use of the term, at least to a point.

What I would ask you, all smack and bullshit aside, is to offer an example of what would constitute, by LAW, a non-violent rape. Your first version of a 17 year old girl willingly giving herself up to having sex, while being defined as statutory rape, is a misdirection. It is still rape, and from the purest definition of English, that makes it non-violent. But by law, it is a violation, thus making it violent. So for the sake of rational discussion, please cite a different example, one that doesn't have willing participants.

With all due respect to my esteemed fellow poster in AZ it is not a misdirection to call a 17 yo having sex a rape because (as I stated in my first post about rape) rape is nothing more than sex without consent. Legal consent. Passed out people can't give it. 17 year olds can't give it. Some retards can't give it. Rape is not ALWAYS a violent crime. Again the court can call it a violent crime but that doesn't MAKE it a violent crime anymore than the state if AZ not calling it rape doesn't mean it is not a rape. The law is fucked up and uses words to manipulate people into thinking things that are not true to scare people and hence gain more control over them. I think you are a good cat Jay and I just don't want to see that happening to you and yours. I'm a nice guy like that.

Okay MS, so that we can all move along and let this deceased equine lie in peace, the point your making is valid. Given the specific parameters regarding your take on not wanting laws to be manipulated into a state of fear with people who don't understand them, your example here makes sense. This discussion got sideways because we each saw the scenario from a different perspective. Statutory rape with a willing participant does not entail violence, true. But with that example aside, rape is ultimately about taking away someone's power, it's dehumanizing and in almost every instance, it is violent.

Why Arizona law has chosen the elimination of the word rape, substituting it with sexual misconduct, baffles me. It doesn't make sense.

In any case, props on ending this the way you did. Let's call this horse dead and buried.

Good now I can get back to calling you a a vapid, droning, waste of skin in some other thread.

So long as I can continue to call you a stupid, short, fat and bald dwarf who makes Dopey look handsome and intelligent by comparison, yes.

I feel like Jimmy Carter at Camp David.

Does Jay get to be the brown guy who gets shot in the head in a couple of years? I know that makes me the Jew but I can live with that.

Moving Sale wrote:I know that makes me the Jew but I can live with that.

Not surprising. It would make you more acceptable to the others in your profession.

Moving Sale wrote:Does Jay get to be the brown guy who gets shot in the head in a couple of years? I know that makes me the Jew but I can live with that.

As long as getting shot in the head is faked, thereby creating a conspiracy theory and making me a martyr (not a Jewish one from Canada mind you...not that there's anything wrong with that.) for the cause. Otherwise, it just seems like a waste of a perfectly good peace summit.

I am always down for a good conspiracy theory. Did you know Bush was behind 9-11?

Yep, and Hitler lived for over twenty years in Argentina after his "suicide" and Elvis and bigfoot are happily married and living on the dark side of the moon.

They say the green cheese is awesome. Probably go well with some of Goober's Madison micro brews.

And he is out after serving 10 months.